DAMNED IF YOU DO, DAMNED IF YOU DON'T: How Dog Bite Law Punishes Responsible Owners — and Why It Matters
THE CATCH-22
I spend most of my professional life defending people who have been sued. I believe in our civil justice system — but I also see, on a daily basis, a system that doesn't always prioritize getting the right answer. My job is to protect people who have been wrongly sued, and to make sure that when liability does exist, it's measured fairly.
So when I tell you that dog bite law in Texas creates a catch-22 that would make Joseph Heller proud, understand that I'm saying it from the defense side of the table — the side that has to deal with the consequences when broad legal theories get aimed at people who were actually trying to do the right thing.
TRAIN YOUR DOG TO BITE ON COMMAND?
A Houston appellate court says that's evidence your dog has "dangerous propensities abnormal to its class" — as a matter of law. Congratulations, you've just handed the plaintiff's attorney the knowledge element of a strict liability claim on a silver platter.
DON'T TRAIN YOUR DOG — OR WORSE, START TRAINING AND NEVER FINISH?
Now you've got a dog with aggressive tendencies and no reliable control. The dog lunges at a mail carrier, the carrier falls and breaks something, and an expert witness testifies that your handling was negligent because any reasonable owner would have known that an untrained, tethered dog posed a foreseeable risk. The dog doesn't even have to make contact. You're still on the hook.
TRAIN TOO MUCH? STRICTLY LIABLE. TRAIN TOO LITTLE? NEGLIGENT.
It's the kind of lose-lose framework that keeps responsible dog owners up at night — and it's a textbook example of what happens when legal theories designed for genuinely bad actors get applied with a broad brush to people who are actually trying to do the right thing. I've seen it happen. I've defended against it.
I recently joined Jared McIntyre on [K9 Species Podcast] (https://youtu.be/tFzR9q03spM), along with criminal defense attorney Jason Milam of Milam and Fanning, PLLC, to talk about this problem in detail. Jason covered the criminal side; what follows is the civil framework I laid out on the show, along with some additional thoughts that didn't make the final cut.
HOW WE GOT HERE
Texas doesn't have a single "dog bite statute." Instead, the law gives plaintiffs four independent theories to work with. They can plead all four at once, and winning on any one is enough.
STRICT LIABILITY. If you know — or should know — that your dog has dangerous tendencies abnormal to dogs generally, plaintiffs will claim you are liable for any harm the dog causes. Full stop. Doesn't matter how careful you were. The best fencing, the most reliable recall, a spotless track record — none of it matters. The only question is whether you knew. This comes from a 1974 Texas Supreme Court decision adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts, and it's been the law ever since.
NEGLIGENT HANDLING. Even if strict liability doesn't apply — even if nobody can prove your dog was abnormally dangerous — plaintiffs will argue you were liable for failing to use reasonable care. This includes failing to restrain your dog, failing to stop an attack once it starts, and keeping a dog in conditions that a reasonable person would recognize as increasing the risk of harm.
NEGLIGENCE PER SE. If your city has a leash law and your dog is off-leash when it hurts someone, the ordinance violation can be claimed to be as automatic negligence. The plaintiff will claim to not need an expert or a prior incident — the law already set the standard, and you broke it.
PREMISES LIABILITY. If someone is injured by your dog on your property, a plaintiff's attorney may also frame the claim as a premises liability case — the dog is a "condition" on your land, and you failed to warn visitors or make the property safe. In practice, the analysis largely overlaps with strict liability and negligent handling — the same facts that prove you knew about the dog's propensities or failed to exercise reasonable care will drive the premises claim too. But it gives the plaintiff's bar one more theory to plead, one more set of jury instructions to request, and one more way to frame the story. A dog chained in the front yard isn't just a negligent handling problem — it's also a hazard on the premises that you invited the mail carrier to walk into.
These theories are independent, and a competent plaintiff's attorney will plead all of them at once. A case can fail on strict liability and survive on negligence. A dog that's never bitten anyone can still generate a viable lawsuit. And an attorney with a decent set of facts can make any of these theories sound compelling to a jury.
THE PROBLEM FOR PROTECTION DOG OWNERS
Here's where it gets ugly. Each of these theories has a hook designed to catch responsible protection dog owners:
Scenario 1 - Strict Liability Catches You For Training
One Texas appellate court — the Fourteenth District in Houston — said that a dog trained to bite has dangerous propensities abnormal to its class. The case involved a police K9 that had bitten three officers, so the facts were extreme. But the language of the opinion is broad, and plaintiff's attorneys have every incentive to extend it. If that holding is applied to the average Schutzhund-trained dog with zero bite incidents outside of training, it means every competition title, every training log, and every invoice you paid to your trainer is evidence of strict liability. You didn't just know your dog could bite — you documented it, paid for it, and earned titles demonstrating it.
Now, I think that reading is too broad, and frankly, I think the court got it wrong. There's a meaningful distinction between a police dog with a documented history of biting officers and a well-trained sport dog with a clean record. Frankly, there is a world of difference between a police dog who bit an innocent fellow officer through being overly reactive, as happened in that case, and a police dog who has never bitten anyone they weren't ordered to bite. A competent defense attorney can distinguish the Houston case on its facts. But I also know from experience that making that argument costs money, takes time, and involves real risk — because you're fighting against broad language in a published opinion.
♦ MY TAKEAWAY: THAT BROAD LANGUAGE CREATES SETTLEMENT PRESSURE, EVEN WHEN THE FACTS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE.
Scenario 2 - Negligence Catches You For Not Training Enough
In a case out of the First District, a Weimaraner named Elmo was tethered on an 18-foot line in the front yard. A mail carrier approached, the dog lunged, the carrier jumped back and fell. No bite. No contact at all. But an expert testified that tethering the dog in that manner increased the likelihood of an aggressive reaction, and the negligence claim survived summary judgment.
Apply that logic to a protection dog context: you've got a high-drive dog, you've done some bite work but never completed the program, the dog is barrier-frustrated in a kennel when a visitor approaches, and the dog reacts aggressively. The visitor jumps back and trips on your nearby potted plant, and all of a sudden they claim their degenerative back problem is somehow your responsibility. An expert testifies that any handler with your level of training knowledge should have anticipated that risk.
♦ MY TAKEAWAY: YOU DON'T EVEN NEED A BITE FOR THAT TO BE A VIABLE LAWSUIT, AND A PAIN IN YOUR NECK, NO PUN INTENDED.
Scenario 3- Negligence Per Se Catches You For Ordinary Mistakes
Leash law violations are the low-hanging fruit, but the statutory framework goes deeper. If your dog bites someone and is classified as "dangerous" under state law, you're suddenly looking at mandatory registration, a $100,000 insurance requirement, secure enclosure standards, and criminal exposure for any subsequent incident. One bad day can trigger a cascade of legal obligations that most dog owners don't even know exist.
The reality is that your violation of the ordinance would still need to be the cause of the accident, but the facts have never kept the plaintiff's bar away from a good story.
♦ MY TAKEAWAY: DON'T HAND THEM A CHEAP ARGUMENT.
THE REALITY IS MORE COMPLICATED
Here's what the case law misses: the landscape of dog training is far more complex than "trained to bite" versus "not trained to bite."
A Schutzhund competitor training a Belgian Malinois in a structured club environment with certified decoys, documented protocols, and regular evaluations is not doing the same thing as the guy in a Georgia case who tormented a pit bull with dead chickens and fed it irregularly to "make it mean." But under a broad reading of the Houston case, the law arguably treats both the same way — because both owners "knew" their dog could bite.
That's absurd. And I say that as someone who has sat across the table from plaintiff's attorneys making similarly absurd absolutist arguments.
The purpose of protection training matters. The methodology matters. Whether the handler completed the program matters. Whether the dog has reliable command response matters. Whether the owner implemented appropriate containment and safety protocols matters. A dog trained in controlled protection work by a professional, with documented command reliability and a clean history, is not the same risk as a neglected, barrier-frustrated dog on a chain in someone's front yard.
The law, as currently articulated by the courts, doesn't do a great job of recognizing that distinction. And that creates a perverse incentive that could easily play out in litigation: owners who do the most to responsibly manage their dogs' capabilities end up with the most documentation of those capabilities — documentation that a plaintiff's attorney will absolutely use against them.
WHAT I AM NOT SAYING
I am not saying that protection training is a bad idea.
I am not saying you shouldn't train your dog.
I am not saying that the legal system is broken beyond repair.
I am not saying that responsible dog owners should live in fear.
WHAT I AM SAYING
The current legal framework creates risks that protection dog owners need to understand. The law was built to deal with genuinely dangerous, poorly managed animals and their irresponsible owners — the junkyard guard dogs and the neglected pit bulls chained up in someone's front yard. When those same legal theories get aimed at responsible handlers with professional training programs, the fit is terrible. And as a defense attorney, I can tell you that defending against a bad-fit theory is expensive, stressful, and uncertain even when you should win.
The right response isn't to stop training. The right response is to understand the legal landscape you're operating in.
WHAT THE CASE LAW SUGGESTS MATTERS
COMPLETION OF TRAINING MATTERS. A half-trained dog is the worst of both worlds — the owner has encouraged the dog to bite without installing reliable control. From a litigation standpoint, an incomplete training program is arguably worse than no training at all, because it combines the knowledge element of strict liability with the lack-of-control element of negligence.
DOCUMENTATION CUTS BOTH WAYS. Training records will exist whether an owner wants them to or not. Records that only show the dog can bite help the plaintiff. Records that also show reliable recall, established protocols, and safety measures tell a different story — one where the owner was exercising care, not just building a dangerous animal. The records that prove knowledge are also the records that can prove diligence.
COMPLIANCE ELIMINATES THEORIES OF RECOVERY. Leash laws, containment requirements, vaccination schedules, local registration requirements — from a defense perspective, these are the easiest issues to take off the table. Every ordinance an owner is following at the time of an incident is one fewer avenue for a plaintiff. Every violation is a freebie for the other side.
INSURANCE GAPS ARE REAL. Many homeowners’ policies have breed exclusions, and a commanded bite may trigger an intentional act exclusion that leaves the owner personally exposed. Umbrella coverage may or may not fill the gap. These are the kinds of questions worth understanding before an incident, not after — because finding out your policy doesn't cover you when you're already being sued is a bad day.
THE LAW HASN'T CAUGHT UP TO THE TRAINING COMMUNITY. The legal framework was built around backyard dogs and junkyard guard dogs (the 1974 case that most of these cases cite to isn't even talking about a dog, it's about a mean hog), not professionally trained working dogs with documented control. That gap exists, and until the courts close it, protection dog owners are operating in uncertain legal territory — territory where the existing case law doesn't distinguish between responsible training and reckless ownership.
As we see here, Teddy (my dog) is wildly disinterested in helping me on a recent Saturday prepping for trial.
DISCLAIMER: The information in this article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have specific questions about your situation, consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
LISTEN TO THE FULL CONVERSATION
For a deeper dive — including scenario-based walkthroughs of what happens when you deploy your dog, the criminal exposure you might not be thinking about, and why the "one bite rule" is mostly a myth — check out my full conversation with Jared McIntyre and Jason Milam on the K9 Species Podcast.
Mark Altman is an attorney at Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee, PLLC in Waco, Texas. His practice focuses on personal injury litigation in Texas state and federal courts. He is also a reserve Navy JAGC officer. To learn more about Mark Altman, please visit his website bio HERE.
For more information about Naman Howell legal capabilities, please visit HERE.
About Naman Howell
Since 1917, Naman Howell Smith & Lee has provided individuals and businesses throughout Texas with the personal attentiveness and expertise they need on their legal matters when they need it most. We pride ourselves on our heritage, vision, and exceptional results. For more information about Naman Howell, please visit namanhowell.com.
